Federal Circuit Adopts Broad Standing in Set-Aside Challenge
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.04.15
In Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. U.S. (Sept. 2, 2015), the Federal Circuit on review of a set-aside contract upheld a small-business determination concerning the awardee when challenged by a large business hoping to compete for the work. Of more general interest was Judge Chen's ruling upholding the large business's standing to pursue the protest, as, if it had been successful on the merits, no small businesses would have submitted qualifying offers and the agency might have reprocured on an unrestricted basis.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
